« Afghan truth | Main | Aimiable Clarke and Huhne »

November 16, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

rwendland

... Hmmm. What happened there. Apologies for the triple post, but I did not hit Post three times!

rwendland

Coincidently it appears that the govt has effectively added the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to ring-fenced (no cuts) govt spending, in fact a 30% increase:

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2058194

"UK maintains decom funding despite budget cuts

The UK nuclear industry was relieved to find that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has been awarded an allocation of GBP8.62 [billion] over the next four years, a 30% increase in its income from the public purse, in the Comprehensive Spending Review ...

... Clean up of high hazard legacy nuclear facilities largely escaped the hatchet because the coalition government recognises that failure to deal with nuclear hazards and waste could compromise public support for nuclear new build.

Energy Minister Charles Hendry [said] ... nuclear clean up is part of the ‘social contract’ and is also a key enabler for new build.

The GBP8.62 [billion] award represents a 30% increase in its income from the public purse, up from the GBP6.4bn awarded for the last four years, but as the NDA’s income from Magnox stations’ electricity generation is diminishing ... it guarantees only a flat expenditure profile for decommissioning."

Chris Huhne's no-subsidy claims are on a very bumpy road - expect him to completely slide off his track soon, as seems the usual LibDem way of late.

Amusing that Nuclear Engineering International forgot the "billion" in the report - if only spending on this really needed less than a tenner from the public purse!

DG

I don't have your faith in the business world, I'm afraid Kay Tie. Could you imagine BP being cavalier with safety on an oil rig, or Rolls Royce selling faulty aeroplane engines, or a baby milk company padding out the product with toxic melamine (in a country with the death penalty for such behaviour, no less)? They might not think it was legal (or might not bother looking too closely) but the individuals might well think they could get away with it. Especially if there's little chance of being held personally responsible.

rwendland

"It's not an "organisation": it was *the government*."

Kay Tie, having a tendency to pedantry, I must point out that the UKAEA was a "statutory corporation", as eg were county councils and British Railways. So DG is technically correct. Though I would concede UKAEA were hugely influenced, if not directed in these areas, by MOD.

Shocking news either way.

Kay Tie

"Unfortunately, yes, I can imagine Group 4 doing it, especially if they were compensated."

No, I can imagine Group 4 being *paid* to do it by the government. I can't imagine Group 4 just deciding to do it: no employee or manager would possibly think it was legal or they could get away with it (maybe a Russian Group Fourski might hire killers and kill opponent, but that's because of the state of things in Russia).

DG

Unfortunately, yes, I can imagine Group 4 doing it, especially if they were compensated. I can imagine anyone (who was so inclined) doing any amount of evil if they have a big enough faceless name to hide behind, whether it's government or business.

Kay Tie

Maybe now you can start to see my point that it's *governments* that do the truly awful things. Yes, evil security contractors in Iraq murdering civilians happens. But that's a tiny fraction of the evil things that governments get up, including our government (just look at how we were complicit in special rendition - can you imagine Group4 just deciding to do this kind of thing?).

Kay Tie

"I'm fed up of organisations being personified to prevent people taking responsibility for their actions."

It's not an "organisation": it was *the government*. And yes, the *people* in the government need to be held accountable.

DG

Jesus Christ, that is positively evil. High risk experiments on pregnant women and children under 18? Was that legal at the time?

Whoever's bright idea that was needs to be named and shamed. I'm fed up of organisations being personified to prevent people taking responsibility for their actions. "The nuclear industry" didn't do this - some people did. People, presumably, with names.

Paul Flynn

Another document kayTie published by the Observer three years ago states:

marked 'Official Use Only', it states: 'The question arises whether the fact that the [Atomic Energy] Authority are now starting such experiments should be publicly announced... on balance it would be preferable for our public relations staff to be briefed with material for use only if the experiments become public knowledge.'

Greenpeace's Jean McSorely said the human experiments were yet more evidence of the nuclear industry's 'bizarre and unsettling' behaviour during the Sixties. 'We know they experimented with discharging radioactive liquid into the seas during the Fifties. So it's maybe not that surprising they decided to experiment on humans, too.'

A spokesman for BNFL, the company that now runs Sellafield, declined to comment while the independent investigation into the removal of organs from bodies of former workers at the plant was still under way@

Nuclear Industry or Nuclear Establishment. They are the same people.

Kay Tie

" The conspiracy theorists have been proved again to have discovered a real conspiracy. The nuclear industry were, and are, more concerned about public realtions that public health."

You cheeky git! There was no "nuclear industry" in the 1960s! It was a part of the government. Mostly Labour governments, in fact.

These experiments demonstrate - as if there's any need - the unpleasant streak that is the hallmark of British governments since the 18th century: authoritarian, arrogant, secretive, and fully prepared to trample on ordinary people.

The comments to this entry are closed.